Ekes v GHS Safety Products Australia Pty Limited (in liq) [2019] NSWCA 160

Ekes v GHS Safety Products Australia Pty Limited (in liq) [2019] NSWCA 160

The interim stay was refused because Payne JA was not satisfied that sufficient cause or urgency had been shown before 28 June 2019, the respondents had only just received the affidavit and needed time to take instructions, the proceedings did not appear properly to seek leave to proceed against a company in liquidation, and the balance of convenience weighed against disturbing the orderly conduct of the liquidation on the basis of only a proposed ATO meeting.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 June 2019
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal and Notice of Motion for Interim Stay / Court of Appeal Procedural Ruling; Interim Stay Refused and Leave Application Listed for Hearing
Outcome
Interim stay refused; notice of motion stood over; application for leave to appeal listed for hearing.
Legal Topics
['application for Leave to Appeal' 'interim Stay' 'winding Up' 'liquidation' 'case Management']
['civil Procedure' 'corporations'] ['application for Leave to Appeal' 'interim Stay' 'winding Up' 'liquidation' 'case Management']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal and Notice of Motion for Interim Stay / Court of Appeal Procedural Ruling; Interim Stay Refused and Leave Application Listed for Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether an interim stay of the orders of Rees J should be granted before the hearing of the application for leave to appeal.' 'Whether sufficient urgency or cause was shown by the proposed meeting with the Commissioner of Taxation on 28 June 2019.' 'Whether the proceedings properly sought leave to proceed against a company in liquidation.']

Ratio Decidendi

The interim stay was refused because Payne JA was not satisfied that sufficient cause or urgency had been shown before 28 June 2019, the respondents had only just received the affidavit and needed time to take instructions, the proceedings did not appear properly to seek leave to proceed against a company in liquidation, and the balance of convenience weighed against disturbing the orderly conduct of the liquidation on the basis of only a proposed ATO meeting.

Court Disposition

Interim stay refused; notice of motion stood over; application for leave to appeal listed for hearing.

Orders

  • ['List the matter for hearing of the application for leave to appeal on 9 July 2019 at 10.15am.' "Refuse an interim stay of the orders of Rees J dated 6 June 2019 and stand over the applicant's notice of motion to 9 July 2019." 'Direct that any respondent wishing to take part in the application for leave to file and...